the same people who complained about Sotomayor are complaining about Kagan

[scheming daemons]

Sotomayor, despite a very very solid liberal record, was called a "corporate choice" and a "closet Republican" by many people on DU.

Those people were wrong then, and they're wrong now.

Elena Kagan is a solid liberal. As Soliticor General, she was bound by her oath of office to represent and put forward the arguments of the administration.

That's what a good lawyer does.

A public defender that defends an axe murderer in court is NOT indicating that they support axe murderers.

People are looking for a reason to bitch.

study her record, her life, and her words.

She would make an excellent liberal justice.

I have no idea if the rumors of her being chosenj are true......

But if they are..... Excellent choice, Mr. President.

[WeDidIt]

1. Bravo

:thumbsup:

It's always the same suspects.

[Tarheel_Dem]

2. Exactly. Rec.

[Merlot]

3. I hope you're right.

My only concern was the articles by Glen Greenwald in Salon. They are not very positve of Kagan.

[WeDidIt]

4. Greenwald despises Obama

He almost never writes ANYTHING positive about anything Obama does.

[depakid]

11. See post #9 below

[HughMoran]

14. I had to unsubscribe

His negativity was just too tiring and nonconstructive. Why does that sound familiar?

[impik]

19. Greenwald would rather see Republican president than Obama. That's how much he hates him

[FrenchieCat]

5. Most of the same people who bitched about Sotomayor,

have been bitching about Obama for I don't know how long.
The fact that they would bitch about Kagan, would make them
consistent. Most of us know who they are, and that's OK
too.

[Go2Peace]

7. Funny, I guess it is half full/empty, because I remember the board generally being supportive of her

You know, this is a forum for a site with what, 50k members? Why should it be a surprise to anyone that there might be some with a different opinion, even amongst people in the same party? Why do people who claim to be "open minded" seem to want to enforce a single unity of thought and opinion?

That to me is much more like the "Republicans". Get rid of the policy differences and what really seperates liberals and conservatives? Things like Tactics, dishonesty, "winner take all", lack of empathy, Authoritarian mindset, Party over intelligence, Party over good policy, Party over people.

Now, just think a little deeper about this. Does it make us more like "Them" to argue and have different opinions over policy and political figures? Or does it make it more like them when we are intolerant of those who think differently and attempt to intimidate and call out people who do not think like we do or have a different vision of what is best for things like this?

Which one is more like a Republican?

[FrenchieCat]

8. Not until Sotomayor was picked was she treated decently by most at DU....however,

Before she was picked, of the front runners, she was probably the least favorite.....
and this time it is Kagan.

You should look to see if you can find a pre May 2009 poll on SCOTUS picks. That would
tell you quite a bit.

[Go2Peace]

10. I disagree and I was here too

Sure there are quite a few here who do not prefer Kagan, and this nomination seems more contentious, but since this is a forum I would expect people to opine if they disagree.

For the record, as to my own opinion, from what I have read Kagan is an acceptable candidate. I do wish we could get someone a little more progressive, not for the sake of progressive policy, but just to balance things and because we really have a serious need for some Justices who will be solidly grounded against the overwhelming pressure that corporations are fighting democracy with. But if we can't she seems generally qualified and able.

(edited to fix the spelling for Kagan)

[HughMoran]

13. No, you're right

memories are short around here.

[Go2Peace]

15. The point of my post went right over your head. People have a right on a FORUM to varied OPINIONS

So folks who tend toward bitching and claiming people who have varying opinions, and yes, even would prefer more progressive politicians than what we have, are kind of like complaining that people at a bar all want to drink alchoholic beverages, though you might be a non-drinker and think it would be better for everyone.

[Whisp]

33. I think the point is, those opinions are not varied

but consistently against anything Obama. Quite too many of those here to be considered genuine disagreement now and then, or then and now.

consistently pissing and moaning about anything Obama. 100% urine.

[NYC Liberal]

26. People right here on DU were against Sotomayor because they thought she was too fat.

Seriously.

[Go2Peace]

28. Probably someone did. But again, how many people did that represent?

So call it out when it happens (surely you reported it right?). I read the other posts to see what was in them. They are pretty much positional arguments and posts of opinion pieces. What is intellectual about calling that out as something it is not?

The OP did not cross that line, but others here are. Just saying :shrug:

[pnwmom]

22. Yes, and the board is generally supportive of Kagan, too.

But many of the same people who are criticizing Kagan now were criticizing Sotomayor then.

[Go2Peace]

24. That's an emotional argument. This is a damn FORUM.

Again, I got in this thread because I hate what people are doing to liberal thought and this board. Not because I am not OK with Kagan.

I am dead tired of a relative MINORITY on this site who constantly call out and try and marginalize people rather than do the hard work of debating an issue. Most of the nastyness on this topic is here, not in the other Kagan threads, most of those are making an argument, not getting personal.

This is a forum for discussion last I saw it so why in the world should anyone not be surprised that people are going to speak up. It is natural that what will tend to be discussed here will be the things that people disagree with. That is just what a forum will do.

But there is a minority that keeps everyone on edge because they want to treat a FORUM as if it's primary purpose is to keep on "message" and they are willing to broadbrush and imply that the others are not legitimate.

[pnwmom]

25. Who's getting emotional? Not me. n/t

[Go2Peace]

27. "emotional argument", different thing

Arguing by appealing to emotion rather than, or ignoring, facts. Republicans are great at it.

[HughMoran]

12. It's tiring

I had to add 2 more to ignore - which is unusual as I've been removing people for a while now. Better than getting posts deleted - uggh :(

[Go2Peace]

maybe we need to accept the board being a forum for discussion?

I checked the posts against Kagan and they weren't on the whole unreasonable. Sure some got emotional (though it was a minority). But in a forum I would expect that.

[Go2Peace]

6. I remember the site being mostly supportive of her?

See my post above

[depakid]

9. Didn't see Glen Greenwald raise objections

Quite the opposite.

See, e.g. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/05/05/tnr

and: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/05/28/sotomayor

...but let's not let facts get in the way of a pigeonholing grouse, shall we?

[Clio the Leo]

16. Matt Yglesias has already called it...

SERIOUS PREDICTION: Kagan pick will be greeted with initial disappointment, conservative attacks will cause liberals to rally 'round her.

http://twitter.com/mattyglesias

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sebastian Doyle]

21. You are full of shit.

Even more so than usual.

*slander alerted*

[Go2Peace]

23. You *might* have seem *one* post that *appeared* to reference this

but likely did not, at least as you thought it.

It gets kind of old when a few people in this forum are CONSTANTLY trying to shout down other's opinions by misrepresenting and then labling people who disagree. It does not belong in a liberal forum.

And I am ok with Kagan by the way.

[impik]

18. Ir's the same people who would bitch about anything Obama

Kagan is a solid Liberal, and if he'll pick her, he would bring the number of women in the Supreme Court from 1 to 3 in one year.

[WeDidIt]

20. The most women who previously were on the court was 2

IF Obama appoints a third it will be the most women EVER to serve on the Supreme Court.

[4lbs]

29. I believe it was mentioned last week that WH sources said that Obama wants to put at least 3 women

on the Supreme Court by the time his Presidency is done.

So, with Sotomayor, and presumably Kagan, that would mean his next (3rd) nominee would also be a woman.

[FrenchieCat]

30. I hope that will be Justice Sears!

If so, that would be fanstastic!

[MadMaddie]

32. You are forgetting about sitting justice Ruth Ginsberg

If and when Kagen is approved she will be the (3) woman on the court.

[4lbs]

35. No, I meant he wants to select 3 women to the USSC.

Ginsberg obviously wouldn't count since he didn't select her.

[quakerboy]

34. Unless he has some reason to expect to get a 4th pick during his administration

I admit that I am deeply hoping he does. Even if he got to replace all 4 not crazy justices with crazy lefties, the court would still be terribly unbalanced. The chance to replace a right wing activist justice would be golden. Even if it were only to replace them with a moderate, it would still be one of the best things to happen in our country in decades.

[Phx_Dem]

31. I'll drink to that!

:toast:

[flpoljunkie]

36. Kagan could have been on the DC Court of Appeals in 1999, but was blocked by Republicans.

If Kagan can go 'head to head' with John Roberts, that's a very good thing.

Kagan has also worked for Joe Biden when he was a senator and clerked for Thurgood Marshall.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/its-kagan----obama-makes-supreme-court-selection.php?ref=fpblg

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/us/politics/10court.html?hp

[VMI Dem]

37. Welfare reform: a liberal cause if there ever was one.

Not a surprising choice Mr President.